SACRAMENTO, Calif. – The Trump administration is halting the push for higher fuel-efficiency standards for cars – and wants to take away California's ability to set its own standards.

The administration says rolling back the Obama-era rules would save buyers of new vehicles about $2,000, while consumer groups counter that better fuel efficiency saves money at the gas pump.

The proposal would also eliminate a federal waiver that has allowed California to set more stringent clean-car rules. On Thursday, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra vowed to file a lawsuit against the plan.

He says the state has been setting emission standards for close to 50 years.

"That's why we're the only state in the nation to have a waiver from the federal government,” says Becerra. “That's why we have led from the very beginning when it comes to keeping our environment as clean as possible. And that's why we're prepared to lead again, when it comes to protecting the national standards we have for cleaner cars."

At least 19 other states have said they will join California in the suit.

The Trump administration also says freezing the miles per gallon for cars at 35 – rather than 54 in the current standards – means people would drive less, which would lower the risk of car crashes. However, outside experts and even EPA scientists have contested this point.

There's a 60-day comment period on the proposed changes.

Doctor Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, warns they'd take the country backward and jeopardize public health.

"This is absolutely a health and safely issue,” says Benjamin. “We know that reducing air pollution is a direct health hazard and not a theoretical one. This proposal by the administration will result directly in more heart attacks, more asthma attacks, more sick kids, and more spending out of our pockets for sick care."

In May, California joined 16 other states in a lawsuit against the EPA to protect the fuel-efficiency standards, arguing that striking them violates the Clean Air Act. Currently, cars and light trucks are responsible for one-fifth of the country's greenhouse gas emissions.


get more stories like this via email

Conservationists in Maine said reinstated protections of the Endangered Species Act could help wildlife already struggling to adapt to climate change.

Economic impacts will no longer be considered when listing certain species as threatened or endangered but the threat of climate change will be a factor.

Anya Fetcher, federal policy advocate for the Natural Resources Council of Maine, said so-called "blanket rule" protections will also be revived.

"This is basically, while they are considering whether they should become endangered, they're going to continue to protect those species as if they were," Fetcher explained.

The Trump administration removed protections for threatened species along with other key aspects of the law. Fetcher acknowledged the new rules are likely to be challenged by Congress similar to other climate and environmental regulations.

Conservation powers will also be extended to federally recognized tribes, allowing them the same opportunities to protect wildlife, including some of Maine's most iconic species such as the piping plover and Canada lynx, which are losing critical habitat to development and a changing climate.

Fetcher pointed out one-third of Maine's species are vulnerable to climate change, including more than half the state's birds.

"Our wildlife is part of what makes Maine so special," Fetcher asserted. "Protecting critical habitat and the incredible wildlife that we have here is vital to our economy as well."

Fetcher added the Endangered Species Act has been helpful in protecting species such as the bald eagle, once on the brink of extinction but now a common sight in Maine. Nearly 500,000 public comments were considered in the new rule-making process.


get more stories like this via email

PacifiCorp's updated energy roadmap throws a lifeline to Wyoming's coal industry but critics said the new Integrated Resource Plan is a major setback for community health and the climate.

Rob Joyce, director of the Wyoming Chapter of the Sierra Club, said the plan would add 100 million metric tons of climate pollution by 2042. It also slashes near-term investments in cheaper wind and solar, and makes a huge bet on behalf of ratepayers to install unproven and expensive carbon capture devices on existing coal-fired power plants.

"To be increasing emissions, increasing investment in fossil fuels, and putting hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars towards carbon capture when we're not 100 % sure if that is actually even going to work is really dubious," Joyce argued.

PacifiCorp, the parent company of Rocky Mountain Power, plans to extend the life of the Jim Bridger coal-fired power plant in southwestern Wyoming until 2039. The plan also pushes back the retirements of Utah's Hunter plant by at least 10 years, and the Huntington plant by at least four years. PacifiCorp said it should deliver significant near-term cost savings to ratepayers.

The plan also added more natural gas to PacifiCorp's energy portfolio. Joyce worries Wyoming ratepayers, already tapped by state lawmakers to pay millions for a carbon capture compliance surcharge, will end up on the hook.

"We're going to have to cover the costs of the volatility of new gas resources," Joyce pointed out. "The company is saying between $500 million and $1 billion per unit that they put carbon capture on. Those are all things that they pass on to the ratepayers."

Joyce noted with a looming 2030 deadline to significantly reduce fossil fuel pollution in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, now is the time to invest big in wind and solar. He added by delaying the expansion of clean energy resources, PacifiCorp is leaving billions of dollars in Inflation Reduction Act incentives on the table.

"Right now we know that solar and wind and even battery storage are cheap and getting cheaper," Joyce emphasized. "Those are investments that the rest of the country is making to save ratepayers money."

Connecticut's General Assembly is weighing several climate change bills. It comes after what advocates describe as detrimental inaction on the legislative body's part in the last two years.

This is due to misinformation, Republican filibusters, and committee inaction.

HB 5004 is a major climate bill before lawmakers.

Lori Brown, executive director of the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters, said it covers a lot of ground to put action behind the state's 16-year-old climate goals.

"This effort - this session - is all about what can we do that would incentivize businesses, individuals, organizations, companies, entities, institutions," said Brown, "all to start really taking steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

The bill received wide support at a public hearing.

Critics say the bill encroaches on their freedoms and eliminates energy supply competition. Others argue climate change isn't caused by greenhouse gases, so this bill is unnecessary.

HB 5004 is expected to be voted on by the House this session.

Some environmental bills haven't faired too well. Brown said she feels they can come back next session since some failed due to time restraints, not lack of interest.

But, she said the new overarching climate bill takes a different approach to prevent it from its predecessors' doomed fate.

"It's more about the incentives and less about the penalties if you do not comply with our existing law," said Brown. "That is why this bill is so important to so many people. We can not have two years in a row with an absolute lack of action on climate."

Advocates are watching SB 191, which addresses food waste.

This bill calls for food scraps to be diverted from solid waste since food waste is responsible for up to 58% of all landfill methane emissions.

Globally, food waste accounts for up to 8% of greenhouse gas emissions.